masospaghetti
Explorer Addict
- Joined
- October 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,526
- Reaction score
- 160
- City, State
- Huntington Beach, CA
- Year, Model & Trim Level
- 98 XLT, OHV, 4D, 4x4, 5M
Here is a multiple, back to back, averaged dyno test preformed in a climate controlled environment comparing an OEM Paper Filter VS. K&N on a Bone Stock 2013 Mustang GT:
http://www.svtperformance.com/forum...ance-2012-gt-k-n-replacement-filter-test.html
And the same filter test done with a supercharger installed on the same vehicle:
http://www.svtperformance.com/forum...filter-test-part-2-magnuson-supercharged.html
Does that prove or disprove anything for you?
Notice how on even 3 back-to-back runs there can be as much as a 9 HP difference.
Just more proof to back up my opinion that K&N has no credibility and that there filters are indeed trash. Even if they say "The Worlds Best Filter" and have Ford Racing's endorsement on the box!
How about the test they did with the stock 5.0 GT with the Airaid intake with a cotton cone filter? +9.2 hp:
"The 9.2 HP and 7.9 lb/ft increase was spread over nearly the entire RPM range" http://www.svtperformance.com/forum...hing-treatment-airaid-mxp-intake-install.html
Is the Airaid filter substantially different than a K&N filter? Maybe, but they seem to be similar in construction type and material. Or is the gain completely due to the intake piping?
I think this test has more validity than the K&N panel filter test which clearly has less filter area than the original paper filter.
This test also shows a cold air intake making more power in the 5.0: http://www.allfordmustangs.com/foru...panel-vs-stock-filter-2011-mustang-5-0-a.html